Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Hiramani Wife Of Shri Hari ... vs State Of H.P. And Others on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3147 OF 2019
Between:
SMT. HIRAMANI WIFE OF SHRI HARI SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYARA, POST OFFICE
AND TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
r ....PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAJEEV SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HIMACHAL
PRADESH SHIMLA.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANDI, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Whether approved for reporting?.
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:33:11 :::CIS
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
.
By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following
main relief:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-6 i.e.
office order dated 15.07.2019 passed by
respondent No.2.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
authorities not to implement Annexure P-6 i.e.
office order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
respondent No.2.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
r authorities to give the work charge/daily wager
status after completion of 10 years of services as
part time worker.
(iv) That the respondents may very kindly direct to
regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. due
date i.e. completion of 7 years of service with all
consequential benefits as per the judgment passed
in CWP No.8127 of 2013 dated 13.05.2014."
2. On 12.04.2022 learned Deputy Advocate General while placing on
record communication dated 11.04.2022, issued under the signatures of Director
General of Police, H.P., stated before this Court that case of the petitioner has
been considered afresh and it has been found that case of the petitioner is similar to
that of case of Sarvo Devi, however at the time of implementing the judgment in
CWP No. 8127/2013, titled as Sarvo Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and others,
the instructions dated 11.04.2018, was not in operation and as such, the same had
been not implemented. He also apprised this Court that at present Government has
circulated instructions dated 11.04.2022 and in view of the provisions contained in
.
the instructions ibid retrospective regularization has been discontinued. Since
learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to
the case of Savitri Devi, stated that special approval was taken from the
Government to give regularization retrospectively, matter was adjourned on the
request of learned Deputy Advocate General to have fresh instructions.
3. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned Additional
Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 29.10.2022, issued
under the signature of Director General of police, Himachal Pradesh, which is taken
on record. Perusal whereof, reveals that Government of Himachal Pradesh has
accorded approval to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of
judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8127 of 2013-C,
titled Sarvo Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and others and competent
authority has approved on file on 29.10.2021 to implement the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Court on the analogy of Sarvo Devi's case and order in compliance to order
dated 29.11.2021 shall be issued shortly.
4. In view of the aforesaid developments, nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly, same is disposed of with the
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light
of judgment passed by this Court in Sarvo Devi's case and grant regularization to
the petitioner from due date on the analogy of Savitri Devi's case, wherein
Department after taking special approval from the Government gave her
.
regularization from retrospective date.
5. This Court hopes and trust that needful in terms of the judgment shall
be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. However, liberty is
reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court of law, if he still remains
aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
31st October, 2022
(shankar)
r to (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
